RICO: A New Tool For Immigration Law Enforcement

Olivia Mendoza is an agricultural worker in
Washington state’s fruit industry, and, while the fruit business in Washington
is a billion-dollar-per-year industry, she and many of her co-workers live in
poverty. Part of their poverty is due to the fact that some employers, like
Ms. Mendoza’s, lower industry wages by illegally hiring low-skill foreign
nationals without proper work authorization.

Not only do these illegal aliens work for less than US
citizens and legal workers, like Ms. Mendoza, they also accept inferior and even
unsafe working conditions. Aside from perpetuating poverty among illegal aliens
themselves, the hiring of illegal aliens also suppresses wages and worsens
working conditions for legal employees like Olivia Mendoza. Fortunately for her
and thousands of Americans in similar circumstances, there is recourse.

In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to include violations of federal immigration
law.1 While this expansion may not
have received much publicity, it could potentially change the face of U.S.
immigration law enforcement. Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of
certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) meets the
definition of racketeering activity, also known as a "predicate
offense,"2
and an entity that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity for financial
gain can be held both criminally and civilly liable.3
Among other things, the INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration
or employ illegal aliens,4 which
violations were included as predicate offenses under RICO.

RICO Claims and Private Lawsuits
In 2000, Howard Foster, an attorney with Johnson and Bell
in Chicago, became the first to bring to trial a RICO claim for a violation of
immigration law. In Commercial Cleaning Services v. Colin Service
Systems,5
a group of office cleaning companies sued a competitor for business they lost as
a result of Colin Service Systems’ pattern of hiring illegal aliens. The
practice, the suit alleged, allowed the defendant competitor to reduce costs and
underbid the plaintiffs on new contracts. The U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut dismissed the case, but in 2001, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals reinstated it, holding that the plaintiffs had standing under
the RICO Act to bring suit.6 The
suit has since been settled in the plaintiff’s favor.

Legal scholars recognize the significance of this decision.
G. Robert Blakey, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told the National Law
Journal that the court, in its decision, has "now told people who are
competitively injured by the abuse of the immigration system that they have a
remedy under RICO. Before, they didn’t have a remedy at all, which is why
Congress put it in there." According to the article, "the 2nd Circuit
decision
could end up supplementing the government’s efforts to catch employers who hire
undocumented workers by permitting civil litigators to press their claims"
As
Mr. Foster put it, "We will be acting as private prosecutors in the way RICO
was
intended and I think that is a desirable thing."7

After the decision in Commercial Cleaning, Mr. Foster
filed two additional class actions, Trollinger v. Tyson Foods8
and Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit,9
against companies alleged to have employed illegal aliens. Both of these cases
were brought by groups of employees who claimed that due to their employers’
practice of hiring illegal aliens, their wages were depressed. While the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington initially dismissed the
case against Zirkle Fruit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it. The
case against Tyson Foods was also dismissed, this time by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, but is currently before the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Foster, there are many similarities between
these cases. Both Tyson Foods and Zirkle Fruit are large employers that have a
major impact on local wage levels, and in both cases the plaintiff employees are
hourly workers employed in jobs typically available to illegal aliens. Also, in
both cases, employers and employees are aware that the defendants are employing
illegal aliens. Foster believes that others in similar circumstances around the
country may also have standing to bring suit.

The Washington D.C.-based Friends of Immigration Law
Enforcement (FILE) is currently involved in a potential RICO lawsuit in New
Jersey in which an employee plans to sue his former employer for hiring illegal
aliens. Wilfredo Torres, an American citizen, is an owner-operator truck driver
who contracted with his former employer to deliver food to grocery stores. Over
his ten years of employment, Torres says his employer hired an ever-increasing
number of illegal aliens. Torres estimates that 50 percent of the workers hired
by his employer are illegal aliens, and alleges that his employer, knowing that
the illegal aliens would work under inferior conditions and for longer hours,
began demanding that the drivers make "double deliveries," even though
such a
requirement violates the policies of the Department of Transportation. When Mr.
Torres refused to accept these unlawful requirements, he was fired. Mr. Torres
stated that he and other American workers were driven out of their jobs because
his employer was willing to exploit illegal alien workers who would do anything,
including making "double deliveries," in order to keep their jobs.
According to
the new uses of the RICO Act, the employer may be liable under RICO for the
financial damages caused to Mr. Torres and his American-citizen and
legal-resident co-workers.

The 1996 changes in the INA made hiring illegal aliens a
predicate act of racketeering activity under RICO, but illegal hiring wasn’t the
only violation of the INA made a predicate act. Other INA prohibitions made RICO
predicate acts were encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, smuggling, and
harboring illegal aliens.10
Together, these additions make the RICO Act potentially a very strong new tool
in the hands of private parties against persons and companies that profit by
violating U.S. immigration law.

Three Components of a RICO Claim
To bring a valid civil and criminal RICO claim, a
plaintiff must plead three elements: "(1) the defendant’s violation of §1962
[the section of the RICO Act that lists prohibited activities, which acts
include violations of certain parts of the INA—ed.], (2) an injury to the
plaintiff’s business or property, and (3) causation of the injury by the
defendant’s violation."11

Predicate Offenses. RICO allows private plaintiffs to
seek compensation from any citizen or entity that causes injury to his business
or property by engaging in a pattern of specific criminal acts, called predicate
offenses.12 As mentioned, certain
violations of the INA serve as predicate offenses, and are defined by the RICO
statute as racketeering activity.13
A violation of Section 1962 of RICO exists when a defendant engages in a
"pattern of racketeering activity," which is defined generally as
"at least two
acts of racketeering activity."

The INA clearly prohibits the hiring of illegal aliens,
stating "[a]ny person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for
employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals
are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined…or imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, or both."14
Thus, any company or person that knowingly hires, within any 12-month period, at
least ten illegal aliens, commits a criminal violation of the INA, and is liable
under RICO. This is the provision that is applicable in the recent class actions
brought by Howard Foster, as well as in FILE’s developing case.

The primary hurdle to establishing illegal hiring as a
predicate act is the knowledge requirement. That is, the defendant must have
knowledge that the persons hired are illegal aliens. Mr. Foster is attempting to
overcome this hurdle by subpoenaing employment records to determine whether the
new employees used valid Social Security numbers. If the Social Security numbers
were invalid and unverified by the employer, then a jury may conclude that the
employer had knowledge that it was hiring illegally — satisfying the knowledge
requirement necessary to establish illegal hiring as a predicate act under
RICO.

In Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit, Olivia Mendoza, the
Washington fruit worker, and her fellow employees alleged that their employers
"knowingly hired at least 50 undocumented workers per year as part of a
scheme
to depress employee wages."15 If
proven, this allegation would satisfy the predicate offense requirements.

Another predicate act that would make an employer liable
under RICO is encouraging or inducing "an alien to come to, enter, or reside
in
the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming
to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."16
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically interpreted this provision
to apply to actions that encourage illegal aliens already in the United States
to remain or that induce further illegal immigration.17
The Fourth Circuit held that "‘encouraging’ is not limited to bringing in,
transporting or concealing illegal aliens. Rather, ‘encouraging’ relates to
actions taken to convince the illegal alien to come to this country or to stay
in this country."18 The Court held
that a range of activities would meet this definition — fertile ground for a
good plaintiff attorney.

One way to encourage illegal immigration is to accept
foreign-issued identification documents, such as the "matricula
consular" card
issued by the Mexican government, that are only needed by illegal aliens.
Mexican consulate offices in the United States issue the cards to Mexican
nationals living here, without regard to the immigration status of the
recipients. Since all legal immigrants and foreign visitors have access to
legitimate U.S.-issued identification, such as a passport with a visa stamp or a
green card, only illegal aliens have need to rely on the matricula card to
establish identity. Acceptance of such a card as valid U.S. identification would
certainly facilitate the entry of illegal aliens into American society, and any
bank, municipality, or other entity that accepts the card, knowingly
provides benefits — such as the ability to open bank accounts or access public
services — to illegal aliens usually reserved solely for US citizens or legal
residents. Though there is no court opinion yet that speaks directly to this new
issue, it is not unreasonable to argue that such a practice could be found to
encourage illegal aliens already in the United States to remain.

Acceptance of the matricula card also induces further
immigration because those contemplating illegal entry will be more likely to do
so given the added benefits they can hope to obtain with a matricula card once
inside the United States. Thus, acceptance of the matricula for financial gain
may serve as a predicate act under RICO. If an entity, for financial gain,
accepts the matriculaon more than one occasion, it engages in a pattern
of racketeering activity in violation of §1962 of the RICO Act.

Other violations of the INA may also serve as predicate acts.
While the previously mentioned acts — employing illegal aliens ands encouraging
illegal immigration — are the only ones discussed in this article, this should
not be construed as providing an exhaustive list of possible predicate acts. The
INA also makes it unlawful to smuggle, transport, or harbor illegal aliens. If
an entity gained financially from these unlawful actions and another person or
business was injured as a result, that person or business may also be able to
bring suit under RICO. Only time will tell just how comprehensive the RICO Act
will prove to be in punishing those who violate U.S. immigration law.

Injury Suffered by the Plaintiff. In addition to
establishing that the defendant has committed a predicate offense, the plaintiff
must also show proof of injury. "Under RICO, ‘any person injured in his
business
or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue
therefore in any appropriate United States district court’ for civil damages.
18 U.S.C. §1964(c)."19

In Mendoza, the group of employees that brought the
suit claimed that they suffered injury to their property in the form of lost
wages. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that this allegation was
sufficient to establish the injury element of the RICO claim.20

In Commercial Cleaning, the group of competitor
cleaning companies that brought the suit alleged that they lost lucrative
cleaning contracts that were awarded to the defendant. In fact, Commercial
Cleaning lost a contract to the defendant that it had successfully performed for
over a year. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the alleged injury
was sufficient to meet this element.21

Another plaintiff that may be able to show injury is the
competitor of a financial corporation that accepts the matricula consular or
other foreign-issued identification card to open a bank account or engage in
other financial services activity. By accepting the card in violation of the
INA, the bank or other entity gains a competitive advantage similar to the
defendant in Commercial Cleaning. The bank, for example, would unlawfully
gain additional account holders, strengthening its competitive position by
providing it with additional resources to invest in loans. This unlawful
activity would injure competitor banks in a similar way that the plaintiff
companies were injured in Commercial Cleaning. The law-abiding competitor
banks would potentially lose loan customers because the bank acting unlawfully
may be able to provide better loan terms or otherwise gain a competitive
advantage due to its strengthened financial position.

Again, this would clearly injure the business capabilities of
the competitors and give potential plaintiffs a valid claim under RICO against
the offending entities. Knowing that they could be held criminally and civilly
liable for such a practice, many businesses might reconsider the practice of
accepting matricula consular cards in the future.

Causation. The third element of a RICO claim — causation
— has been the most challenging for plaintiffs looking for redress for injuries
suffered due to violations of immigration law. In fact, the district courts that
dismissed the previously mentioned cases did so based on lack of causation. This
element requires that the predicate act committed by the defendant must have
caused the injury to the plaintiff.

The test used to assess causation was established by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection
Corp.22
"Holmes described this proximate cause requirement as requiring a
'direct
relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct
alleged.'"23
This "direct relation" test requires the court to assess three factors:
"(1)
whether there are more direct victims of the alleged violation who can be
counted on to vindicate the law; (2) whether it will be difficult to ascertain
the amount of damages attributable to the violation; and (3) whether allowing
recovery for indirect injuries would force the court to adopt complicated rules
apportioning damages among plaintiffs removed at different levels of injury to
obviate the risk of multiple recoveries."24

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
applied this "direct relation" test in Commercial Cleaning v. Colin
Service
Systems. As mentioned, Commercial Cleaning sued on behalf of a group of
office cleaning companies that competed with the defendant. Commercial Cleaning
alleged that it lost cleaning contracts because Colin could provide lower bids
as a result of Colin’s employment of illegal aliens. By hiring illegal aliens,
the plaintiff alleged, Colin was able to cut labor costs since it did not have
to pay federal taxes for those employees and since it could pay the illegal
aliens less than that which legal workers were entitled to, and would demand.

After applying the "direct relation" test, the court
held
that causation was not established.25
The court held the plaintiff lacked standing to sue under RICO, and dismissed
the case,26 reasoning that multiple
factors besides the alleged illegal hiring scheme could have caused the injury
to the plaintiffs, that damages would be difficult to determine, and that the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), not the plaintiffs, had the
responsibility to punish the defendant.27

On appeal, however, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
refuted these conclusions. While the Second Circuit agreed that multiple factors
could have contributed to Commercial Cleaning’s loss of contracts, it found that
the plaintiff may be able to prove that the loss was due to Colin’s illegal
hiring scheme, and so should be given an opportunity to do so.28
The Court stated that "[w]here, as here, the parties have bid against each
other, the difference between the lowest and second lowest bid is readily
discoverable.If Commercial can prove that but for Colin’s lower wage
costs attributable to its illegal hiring scheme, Commercial would have won the
contract and would have earned a profit on it, it will have shown a proximately
caused injury, compensable under RICO."29

The Second Circuit also disagreed with the district court’s
conclusion that damages would be difficult to apportion. The Court clarified
that this factor relates only to the risk of multiple liability where
compensation is paid both to those directly injured by the defendant’s illegal
activity, called first-tier plaintiffs, and those derivatively injured, called
second-tier plaintiffs. The concern of the Supreme Court in Holmes, the
Second Circuit explained, "was that, if damages are paid both to first tier
plaintiffs…and to second tier plaintiffs…then the payment of damages to the
first tier plaintiffs would cure the harm to the second tier plaintiffs, and the
payment of damages to the latter category would involve double
compensation."30
However, there is no risk of double compensation in this case. "Commercial
and
its fellow class members are not alleging an injury that was derivative of
injury to others. Commercial does not seek to recover based on ‘the misfortunes
visited upon a third person by the defendant’s acts.’"31
Thus, the concern of the district court that damages would be difficult to
apportion was
unfounded.

The Second Circuit further disagreed with the district court,
stating that Commercial Cleaning and its fellow class members were the proper
entities to bring suit. Colin Systems had argued, and the district court had
agreed, that the INS was the proper entity to bring suit against Colin Systems.
The appellate court found this argument illogical. As the Second Circuit
explained, if the fact that a government entity has a right to bring a suit
means that private entities are precluded from suing, then there would be no
private right of action under RICO because all predicate offenses under RICO
expose the violator to government prosecution. Since there is a recognized
private right of action under RICO, the district court’s conclusion cannot be
maintained.32

A similar sequence of events occurred in the case of
Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit. Mendoza sued her employer, alleging that her wages
were suppressed as a result of her employer’s hiring of illegal aliens. The U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed the case,
holding that Mendoza and her fellow class members lacked standing under RICO to
bring suit.33 As in Commercial
Cleaning, the district court in Mendoza applied the "direct
relation"
test and determined that the hiring of illegal aliens was not the proximate
cause of the plaintiff’s injury.34

While the district court did agree with Mendoza that she was
the proper victim to bring suit because she did suffer a direct injury, the
court disagreed with Mendoza as to the other two factors. The court held that
the plaintiff would not be able to "concretely establish the degree to which
their wages have been affected by the defendants’ alleged violations" due to
the
multitude of factors that could contribute to the lower wages.35
The court stated that it would be "a daunting task" to sift through all
these
factors and determine the damages attributable to the employer’s hiring of
illegal aliens. The court thus held that Mendoza lacked standing under RICO, and
dismissed her claim.

However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, like its
counterpart in the Second Circuit, reversed the dismissal of the RICO
claim.36
The Ninth Circuit did agree with the district court’s conclusion that Mendoza
and her fellow class members were the proper victims to bring suit.
"[T]aking
the allegations in the complaint as true, we are unable to discern a more direct
victim of the illegal conduct. The documented employees here do not complain of
a passed-on harm. They allege that the scheme had the purpose and direct result
of depressing the wages paid to them by the growers."37
However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the other findings of the district
court.

First, the Ninth Circuit stated that the district court
improperly dismissed based on the mere fact that factors other than the alleged
illegal hiring scheme could have caused the depression of wages. "[I]t is
inappropriate at this stage to substitute speculation for the complaint’s
allegations of causation…the workers must be allowed to make their case through
presentation of evidence, including experts who will testify about the labor
market, the geographic market, and the effects of the illegal scheme… For now,
it is sufficient that the employees have alleged market power — they must not be
put to the test to prove this allegation at the pleading stage."38

The court noted specific portions of the complaint that
strengthened the plaintiff’s case — the allegation that "the growers
singularly
have the ability to define wages in this labor market" and allegations that
spelled out "a broad conspiracy causing direct harm to the workers."
With these
allegations included in the complaint, the court held that the plaintiff class
had stated a valid claim, and that the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to
prove their allegations at trial.

The Ninth Circuit also disagreed that damages would be
difficult to calculate. "That wages would be lower if, as alleged, the
growers
relied on a workforce consisting largely of undocumented workers, is a claim at
least plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss, whatever difficulty might
arise in establishing how much lower the wages would be."39
Thus, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded that the possible difficulty of
calculating damages was enough of a reason to dismiss an otherwise valid
claim.

As a result of these conclusions, the Ninth Circuit
reinstated the RICO claim and remanded the case.40

A third RICO case currently in the courts is Trollinger v.
Tyson Foods. The facts of Trollinger are very similar to those in
Mendoza — a class of employees sued their employer for conspiring to depress
their wages by hiring illegal aliens. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee dismissed the case for failure to state a
claim.41

In reaching its conclusion, the district court relied on
arguments similar to those made by the district courts in Commercial
Cleaning and Mendoza. In fact, the district court used the opinion
from Mendoza, which of course was later reversed, to support its holding.
The court applied the "direct relation" test and stated that even
though the
plaintiffs alleged a direct injury, "the conclusion that Tyson’s hiring of
alleged illegal aliens depressed the plaintiffs’ wages would require sheer
speculation."42 However, this is
the exact argument that the Ninth Circuit in Mendoza stated was improper
— "it is inappropriate at this stage to substitute speculation for the
complaint’s allegations of causation."43

An additional factor noted by the district court that is
unique to Trollinger is that a union that negotiated a collective
bargaining agreement, which set the wage rate, represented the plaintiffs. The
court reasoned, "As the wage rates were the product of collective
bargaining,
plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that those rates were ultimately depressed by the
presence of alleged illegal aliens in the work force."44
However, the presence of this collective bargaining agreement will likely be
seen as merely another factor which could affect wage rates, rather than the
sole factor, and so the plaintiffs will likely be given the opportunity to prove
that the agreement itself was affected by the employer’s hiring of illegal
aliens. It is reasonable to believe that the employer, knowing that it could and
would hire illegal aliens at a lower wage rate, offered less to its legal
employees during the negotiations surrounding the collective bargaining
agreement. Thus, the hiring of illegal aliens would still be a cause of
depressed wages.

The Future of RICO & Immigration Law
With the aforementioned decisions, all of which became
final in the last two years, the RICO Act has become one of the most important
tools in the private enforcement of U.S. immigration law. Pioneered by Mr.
Foster and embraced by FILE and others, the use of RICO in the realm of
immigration law promises to have broad implications for private entities.

One likely result that would follow if the plaintiffs in the
discussed suits succeed on their claims is that the hiring of illegal aliens
will be seriously curtailed. The RICO Act sets severe penalties for defendants
found guilty of violating its provisions. A successful plaintiff is entitled to
treble damages, which means threefold the actual injury suffered, plus costs and
reasonable attorney’s fees.45
Additionally, the court can order the defendant to divest itself of any interest
in any enterprise and to refrain from engaging in any commercial activity or
making commercial investment. The court can also order the "dissolution or
reorganization of any enterprise."46
In short, the losing defendant in a RICO case can lose his or her business, be
forced to provide high levels of compensation to the plaintiff, and even be
prohibited from engaging in future business activities.

Once businesses realize just how devastating these RICO
penalties can be, they will find it prudent to resist the urge to hire illegal
aliens. Thus, the first successful RICO claim against an employer for hiring
illegal aliens will likely send a strong signal to corporate America that
immigration laws must be respected — precisely what Congress intended when it
included INA violations in the RICO Act.

Additionally, the RICO provision regarding the unlawful
encouragement of illegal immigration could justify a suit against a private
entity, such as a bank, that accepts foreign-issued identification cards that
are only needed by illegal aliens. One example of this, of course, is the
matricula consular issued by the Mexican consulates in the United States.
Since both the supporters of the matricula and those who oppose its
acceptance agree that only illegal aliens have need to rely on the card,
acceptance of the card knowingly encourages illegal immigration.

Some large U.S. financial corporations currently accept the
matricula as primary or secondary ID for the purpose of opening bank
accounts in the United States for illegal aliens. An illegal alien with a U.S.
bank account, in which he or she may deposit illegally acquired funds, and out
of which he or she may pay local rent, local utility bills, and send money
abroad, is more likely to remain illegally in the United States. In other words,
he or she is encouraged to remain illegally in the United States — such
encouragement being a violation of Federal law.

When such a violation is done for the purpose of financial
gain, as in the case of the financial corporations engaged in the practice, it
is more than simply a violation of immigration law — it is racketeering. Also,
those contemplating entering the United States illegally will be further
encouraged to do so because of the added benefits they can obtain once they
enter. Thus, it is reasonable to say that acceptance of the matricula is
a violation of the INA and a predicate offense under RICO.

With this predicate offense established, a bank that competes
with the one accepting the card would only have to plead the other elements of a
RICO claim — injury and causation — in order to survive a motion to dismiss and
bring the case to trial. The plaintiff bank will likely be able to plead these
elements. As mentioned in the discussion of the injury element above, the injury
to the plaintiff bank would be lost market share and competitive disadvantage,
leaving causation as the only remaining obstacle to receiving compensation for
damages.

Under the "direct relation" test, the plaintiff will
be able
to prove causation. First, the plaintiff bank would be the direct victim of the
defendant bank’s illegal activity, similar to the direct injury suffered by
Commercial Cleaning at the hands of Colin Service Systems. Second, it will not
be difficult to ascertain the damages attributable to the unlawful acceptance of
the matricula. Regulations issued by the U.S. Treasury Department require banks
to record the type of document used by an account applicant. Thus, the defendant
would have records indicating how many accounts were issued on the basis of the
matricula alone. Calculations, relatively simple for financial
professionals, could then be made to determine the level of business the
defendant obtained by its unlawful activity and the impact that that unlawfully
gained business had on the market. Third, there is no risk of multiple
liabilities due to the presence of second-tier plaintiffs. The plaintiff bank, a
first-tier plaintiff, will likely be the only plaintiff with standing to sue
since it is the only entity injured by the defendant. Though multiple banks may
sue the defendant, all of these banks will be first-tier plaintiffs, so this
last factor is not of any concern. Thus, banks accepting the matricula
face the real possibility of RICO liability.

Beyond illegal hiring and acceptance of foreign-issued
identification cards, only time will tell just how much of an impact the
inclusion of INA violations in the RICO statute will have on immigration law,
corporate practice, and public policy. What is clear is that Howard Foster and
others following his lead are blazing a new legal path armed with a powerful
tool — RICO — that is sure to have a profound effect on the way immigration laws
are enforced in this country.

Part of the legislative intent of the RICO laws in general
was to afford private citizens a remedy for lawbreaking when authorities
normally charged with such enforcement became derelict in their duties. For
example, in a town in which political corruption and racketeering activity have
combined to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and the rule of law, the RICO
Act was intended to provide private citizens the ability to initiate court
action to compel enforcement and respect for the law.

The inclusion of INA violations as RICO predicate acts in the
1996 immigration reform act was an attempt by Congress to provide private
citizens with recourse in the face of widespread disregard for immigration laws.
Now, citizens and businesses are beginning to avail themselves of this powerful
new tool, and, if the intent of Congress bears fruit, the results could
represent a drastic change in immigration law enforcement in the United States,
based on private interest as opposed to government enforcement. By providing a
strong incentive for employers and businesses to stop engaging in illegal hiring
and the encouragement of illegal immigration for financial gain, there is hope
to significantly reduce illegal immigration in the United States simply by
working through the U.S. courts.

About The Author

Micah King is with Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, a Washington-based association of attorneys, law enforcement professionals, and others concerned with immigration law enforcement. This article originally appeared as a backgrounder for the Center of Immigration Studies.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.